Forum Moderators: open
Whether what I did in the past was wrong or right I really don't want to debate. Whether I was removed as editor was wrong or right I don't want to debate either.
However, my problem is that months after new businesses and past businesses and even future businesses are being affected. To make a analogy: What if you were fired from a job and your boss created a list with your past labelled as "wrongs". Then further researched and tried to find what you are doing now and added your current activities to this "wrongs" list and gave this list to anyone who was in a position to hire you. Further anyone who was associated with you was also added to this "wrongs" list and any future activity will be added as well. No one would hire you and no one would want to be associated with you.
Doesn't this seem a little extreme? This is what is happening to me.
Not so. Prove me wrong rather than just saying that UFOs exist and there were multiple gunmen responsible for shooting JFK.
(*) I have to say this next bit carefully. You have the right to describe your actions here (and you did), but I do not have the right to describe them -- or even to comment on whether your description was accurate. That's the ODP confidentiality rules. So my remarks must not be (and must not be taken as) either a confirmation or a demurral of your description. But I can say that, historically, the actions of abuse for which we've invoked the "scorched earth" policy have always been MUCH more blatant than what you describe.
Another way of saying it is: we remove lots of editors, and have to clean up after them: but only in the most extreme cases do we altogether remove sites that otherwise would have warranted a listing. And the situation, as you described it, is far from the extreme.
If there is help/forgiveness out there, I would appreciate it.
1. Log in. Go to Editor Main. See that a new site is waiting to be reviewed.
2. Read editor notes.
3. Review the site and come up with my own description of the site if needed. Generally, a new description is needed. All too many sites that are submitted tend to try to market themselves in one or more ways.
4. Check for multiple links. For me, at least, this is sort of the crucial test for most sites. Sites that are already listed 10 or more times in the ODP get flunked at this stage (only had to do this to 2 sites). Until recently, I was under the impression that a site was only allowed 1 listing. As a result, I denied some sites because they were in a topical category and were now applying for regional listings (I edit a regional state sub-sub-sub category). When I discovered this error, I re-submitted these sites myself and put them back in.
It should be noted that i've never even heard of this "ex-editor" list that has been brought up previously. I suppose if I started digging through the enire guidelines I might find mention of it, or wading through the forum, but nothing like that has ever jumped out at me while editing. The editor dashboard is pretty straight forward, if somewhat confusing, at first.
Overall, DMOZ is a pretty neat project. While my category is tiny by all comparisons, it is kind of fun and rewarding in its own way to contribute to my one little section of the web. Prior to my taking over this tiny category, there was one dead site listed as well as most of the other sites having absolutely awful descriptions. I spent the time surfing these sites to find out what they were about and cleaned up the description to have them make more sense (it was obvious that whoever reviewed the sites previously knew nothing about the topic of the category).
And just to be upfront, my site is listed in this state regional sub-sub-sub category I edit. However, I got my site listed in this category 2 months before I ever became an editor. While I have no proof of this, I suspect having my site already listed in the category I applied for might have helped clear the way to editing - since I've since learned that most applicants seem to get denied for whatever reason.
Anyway, just though this little bit of information from a new ODP editor might be useful to someone. I suspect most ODP editors of small categories probably use a similar method when reviewing sites.
In the end, when reviewing sites, I and probably most editors do not look for reasons to deny a site. Instead, the reasons for denying a site are usually very obvious (page doesn't work, multiple linked, mirror sites, spam site, 100% affiliate links). In short, the obvious stuff. Few editors, I suspect, have time to go and check out WHOIS information, go thorugh various logs and in general play detective about a particular site.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Few editors, I suspect, have time to go and check out WHOIS information, go thorugh various logs and in general play detective about a particular site.
Thank you for your helpful post. As you say, it is what you do, but I feel that it is representitive of what most DMOZ editors do.
And as you say, few have the time or inclination to play detective. So if someone does play detective they usually have a good (or indeed bad) reason for doing so. Which is the point I have been trying to make. ;)
Actually, what you described is very similar to the way I used to edit. I hope that your experience will be better than the one I had.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can find out what happened?
Your login has been inactivated. Editor logins expire if an edit is not made in four consecutive months, even if you logged in during that time period. To request reinstatement of your login, please fill out the login reinstate form.If you believe you are receiving this message in error, please contact staff@dmoz.org
If a removed editor tries to log in, s/he receives this message:
Login RemovedYour login was deactivated for one or more of the following reasons:
-- Repeated failure to comply with the Open Directory community's editorial guidelines and policies.
-- Continuous poor and/or abusive editing.
-- Self-promotion and biased editing, including, but not limited to, cooling your own site, title or description manipulation, unfairly editing your owns sites or those with which you are affiliated.
-- Unfairly tampering with competitors' listings and submissions.
-- Inability to function well within the Open Directory community.
-- Uncivil and intentionally disruptive behavor.
-- Violation of Open Directory forum and email privacy.
-- Spamming the directory.We do not disclose the specific details of login removals. However, the decision to deactivate your login was made by consensus of the meta community, and thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff to ensure that our decision was appropriate and warranted. Our decision to remove your login is final. Removed logins will not be reinstated, and you will not be granted a new login. We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
The specific cause for removal is confidential within the Project as well as to the public and no meta-editor would reply to a request for explanation without endangering expulsion him or herself. Why give the offender ideas on how better to cover his/her tracks should s/he ever sneak in again under a different name?
It is possible that someone who times out will receive the wrong message. If you believe this is the case, please e-mail staff@dmoz.org or contact a meta-editor [dmoz.org].
See also the ODP Help Central [dmoz.org] material on editor accounts.
No, you can't get a list of the sites that are tracked: there are many different ways of keeping such records, and each editor can even create his own private list. Some of them end up in Test subcategories, others don't.
If a site is really listable, according to the guidelines, you can 1) submit it and 2) ask about its status in the ODP editors' own forum.
If it's not listable according to the guidelines, you will have deserved the rotten vegetables heaved at you. If it is listable, and you haven't done anything REALLY vicious (over, say, 100 submittals is probably getting pretty close to really vicious) then you can generally get a response.
If you've done something really vicious, then we'll probably just stand by and cheer when you get run over by your karma. (The internet didn't repeal the basic principles of social behavior.)
I agree with your comments. In the end I was able to get help with my problem from one of the meta-editors. Some of the sites were eventually added to DMOZ. I only submitted the sites once and the meta-editor commented that it would have been fine to submit more than that so I submitted some of them again. These others are still waiting to be added. The sites are worthy of being added, but the categories where they were submitted some lack editors and others have editors who are slow about reviewing the sites. I even addressed this issue on the DMOZ forum but it hasn't speed up the process. I believe that many of the editors are good people and have appreciated the help I was given. Still sometimes I wish there was a way to speed up the process. 3-6 months is just too long wait for sites which are of high caliber.
If you say so...
I figure when a site offers over 100 pages of unique general real estate information including mortgage information, buyers and sellers tips, and a glossary plus over 40 pages on the communities the site serves, telling visitors the areas where or where not to buy; then it qualifies as a site of high caliber. If this much content does not warrant this distinction then 80% of the sites listed on DMOZ shouldn't be listed.
My sites are on that list, but I never spammed. I don't even resubmit sites after they've been submitted once.
The problem with that list is this:
"If you wish you had no sites on it, don't abuse."
It leads other editors to believe that sites on that list are banned for spamming. So they won't touch them, much less list them.
And it's secretive, and obsessive. Not in the "open" spirit at all.
...
BTW, you aren't coming by anymore? ;)
It leads other editors to believe that sites on that list are banned for spamming.
So they won't touch them, much less list them.You can't really speak for what other editors might think or do. It's just a list and the presence of a URL in that list doesn't mean it can't/won't be listed if it is in fact a listable site.
I can speak for what editors might think or feel. I have spoken to many, and that's exactly how they feel. Furthermore, that's the intended affect.
You can't really speak for what other editors might think or do. It's just a list and the presence of a URL in that list doesn't mean it can't/won't be listed if it is in fact a listable site.
I'm sure you are aware that there are indeed many editors who will not touch a site for exactly that reason. Just as there are many who will not add a listing if it has repeated derogatory editor notes.
That should be updated to say:
"Suggestions for improvement are not welcome."
And as long as I'm saying this, at the same time: to all the editors who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours editting, thank you.
Someone might fear that placing a url on some internal list prejudices editors against it. Well, if you want to go that far, you ought to fear "ordinary" editor notes placed on a url as well. The fact that there are twenty notes attached to a url, even if all the notes are "fixed typo in description," could make editors "afraid." Who knows what kind of absurd reason an editor might have to sit on a site? Maybe there are too many hyphens in the domain name. Maybe the fonts look funny in the Japanese language version of Netscape 4.5. If someone is looking for a conspiracy, s/he's 100% certain to find it.
As for the criticism of pointing out disgruntled ex-editors, well, usually there is no need to. But then, I don't take medical advice from a doctor whose license was revoked, or base my investment decisions on those of a convicted fraudster, or accept moral advice from a defrocked minister. And if I were trying to learn how to have my site accepted into the ODP (and minimize the chance of being traumatized with placement on some secret conspiracy list), I might appreciate learning when advice or suggestions could be coming from a less than reliable source :).
Suggestions for improvement are not welcome."
I am with Mosley 700 on that one. The perception to the non editor is exactly that.
I don't take medical advice from a doctor whose license was revoked, or base my investment decisions on those of a convicted fraudster, or accept moral advice from a defrocked minister
If might hazzard a few remarks on your statement above. It does more than most, to explain the problem of the ODP viz a viz the non-ODP world.
The doctor, fraudster or minister have been through a due legal process, and have had a right to defend themselves, and the public can read about the trial and form a judgement of their own.
The ODP system is a cross betweem the infallabilty of the pope and the divine right of kings. Decisions are made behind closed doors and the outside world, or those on trial are supposed to accept the divine wisdom of those who have made the judgements. The "disgrunted ex-editor" is disbarred without being aware of what they are being accused of, which perhaps explains why they are not exactly "gruntled ex-editors" ;)
It is interesting that the statement comes from a meta editor, in other words one that has participated in such defrockings/unlicencing/convicting of editors.
Unfortunately these remarks of mine are likely to be taken as an attack on the ODP, that is far from the case. My position is similar to Mosley 700s in post 81.
I am just commenting on a meta editor's incorrectly and emotively equating the ex-editor to a defrocked minister, licence revoked doctor or convicted fraudster. And using the very phrase "disgruntled ex-editor" in the way that Mosley 700 draws attention to.
While such language may go down well in ODP forums, it does, if I may say so, look frankly ridiculous here in a more open forum.
<retires to the bunker, waits for the heavy artillary...and its a lovely sunny morning here>
(I only listed one of my sites, and I went out and found my competitors sites and listed them, even though they were not submitted. I was removed when I refused to double list a site with multiple URLs.)
All I want is to improve the directory. We ought to be able to discuss this in an open manner. What does that mean? Editors need to end this policy of attacking anyone who complains, and calling them a "disgrunted spammer", or assuming their site is worthless. It's not the editors' ODP. It belongs to everybody.
Apeuro, Kctipton, hutcheson, this is not a personal issue, and I, for one, appreciate all the time you put into the ODP. I use it often for directory searches.
All I want is to improve the directory. We ought to be able to discuss this in an open manner
Mosley 700, they will be thinking you and I are the same identity (for the record, we are not)
I agree with that post too.
It seems impossible to make any "suggestion" on the ODP, without it being construed as an attack on the institution itself, and the metas that control it.
I too am here to help, guys. ;)
Well, if you want to go that far, you ought to fear "ordinary" editor notes placed on a url as well.
I did. In message #80.
"It seems impossible to make any 'suggestion' on the ODP, without it being construed as an attack on the institution itself..."
Notice that the above "question" is a multi-level and direct attack and not truly a question at all. When people make attacks and put question marks at the end, there isn't much incentive to try and extract positive discource out of them.
Notice that the above "question" is a multi-level and direct attack and not truly a question at all. When people make attacks and put question marks at the end, there isn't much incentive to try and extract positive discource out of them.<<
It is a question. Notice on Zeal that editor message boards are visible to everyone. Notice on Zeal that each site listed shows who listed it. That is a democracy. The current state of the ODP is not democratic or even a "Republic of The Web". As a political system, the ODP is a_______(fill in the blank).
Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean it's not a question. Open up the open directory. No more secrets.
The current state of the ODP is not democratic or even a "Republic of The Web". As a political system, the ODP is a_______(fill in the blank).
Any state has a constitution, including the ODP. Problem with most state's constitutions is that they become almost impossible to change once they have been written
I've just found out that my login has been disabled. I won't go into the reasons here at the moment, but suffice to say that I believe this to be very harsh.
I have been given the standard Login Removed screen as shown in message #70 on this topic. The last paragraph leads me to think that any attempts by me to have the situation looked at again would be wasted, no matter whether my exclusion was justified or not.
Am I correct in this, or is there some route I can take which might allow this decision to be reviewed? Has anyone any experience of being excluded and then re-admitted?
